8/26/2008

Two-tour Green Beret Ted Sampley of the 2004 “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” is now targeting the Republican nominee with the group “Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain.” For some reason, Fox News is less eager to have him on the air than they were four years ago.

Ted Sampley was a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?? That’s news to me!!

I followed the link, and I think Excitable Andy misread the following passage:

Two-tour Green Beret Ted Sampley, who helped “Swift Boat” Democrat John Kerry in the 2004 presidential race, is now gunning for the GOP White House hopeful.

That’s hardly the same as saying that Sampley is a member of the Swift Vets.

Let’s dig a little deeper, shall we?

Here is a reprint of the original Swift Vets’ letter to Kerry, with a list of the signatories. Sampley’s name is not on there.

And Sampley’s biodescribes him as a veteran of the Army — which would make it quite a trick for him to have been a member of the Swift Vets, which was a group of Navy vets.

It’s true that Crooks and Liars has called Sampley “Ted ‘Swift Boat’ Sampley.” And Ken Layne’s Wonkette has used the phrase “famous Swift-boater Ted Sampley.” Proof that Sampley is a Swift Vet? I’d say it’s more likely proof that Crooks and Liars and Wonkette are not particularly trustworthy web sites.

Yes, Sampley was a wild-eyed opponent of John Kerry’s, before he was a wild-eyed opponent of John McCain’s. That doesn’t make him a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Absent a shocking revelation inconsistent with the above facts, Mr. Sullivan owes his readers a retraction. I’m e-mailing him now.

Of course FNC turned down a couple of Obama ads that were negative – Ayers’ defense, IIR. I didn’t follow it, but the left-leaning blogs should’ve credited Fox for that. I didn’t know any political ad would be too negative to air. Must be the times we’re in.

One of Andy’s emailers sent him a missive saying how he was brought over to Obama’s side by the passage in Michelle Obama’s speech about how BHO drove her and their first daughter home from the hospital after she was born at only 10 mph, looking in the rear view mirror the whole time.

I emailed Andy asking him if he could prove that Michelle Obama had ever told that story before the movie Knocked Up came out, since that precise scene is the ending for the movie.

I pointed out that this is the same standard that he used to question McCain’s “cross in the dirt” story when he thought that Solzhenitsyn had told the same story in one of his books — which as it turns out was not true.

Andrew Sullivan is a reminder to all conservatives to pay attention to the structure of arguments.

I recall when he was a devout fan of Bush and the war effort. His arguments were the same as today: insulting and lying about those who write with differing opinions. He’s have awards for people names to insult other people. He was angry all the time. It was stupid.

Now that he’s making baseless accusations or simply insulting the other side, and often completely inaccurate and unfair to the GOP instead of the Democrats, it’s more obvious to me what Andrew is (a jackass simpleton), but he was always that way. It’s helped me be a more careful reader.

A much better argument: “My esteemed opponent is mistaken in his assertions, and the following reasons will demoonstrate why…”

My personally favoured style of argument: “Pay no attention to Mr Poopyhead over there, he’s full of BS and couldn’t hear a cannon going off right next to his bed. These are the reasons why he doesn’t even deserve to be called retarded…”

Andy’s more the first. Patterico’s more the second. AoSHQ is much, much more the third…

The last time I donated with total enthusiasm and absolutely no reservation was to the Swifties several times in the fall of 2004. The left’s attempts to smear them are successful only in the swamps and the echo chambers of the left’s own minds.

My husband is a Vietnam vet and a strong conservative. He and other vets honor McCain for at least his service, courage and sacrifice, if not for his tepid and often absent conservatism.

Fascinating and sad, watching Sullivan deteriorate the way he has. Not just a cheap shot but a mendacious one.

Juan, I tend to disagree with you. I was a faithful reader of Sullivan’s until he went off the rails about 2003 over gay marriage (and then over everything conservative and Bush-related and Gitmo24x7). I have kept many of his columns and articles from before the deterioration, and they were extremely cogent, articulate, well-thought-out and full of optimism, patriotism, and balance. He’s lost all that. It’s not just that he used to rail against liberals and now rails against conservatives – he’s become an utter and total crank. It’s like his meds have destroyed his mind, seriously. He’s a different person – one whom I never, ever read anymore but merely stumble upon in references in blogs such as this.

I’ve always thought it hilarious that AS has safely insulated himself from criticism by restricitng comments to “subscribers”. It’s a wonderful way to kill three birds with one stone: muzzle critics; keep readers ignorant of the almost his daily major factual errors and outright intellectual dishonesty; and beguile himself and his supporters that he is loved and all is well.

Are there any conservative bloggers of his stature who similarly control dissent?

What Bingo said. I was an avid viewer of FoxNews, both four years ago and now. I remember seeing John O’Neill on FoxNews all the time, but I can’t remember seeing Sampley on there even once.

Then again, to the libs the verb “to swiftboat” means “to say bad stuff about my guy, which may or may not be true.” By that definition Sampley is definitely guilty of “swiftboating” Kerry then, and McCain now.

I’d say it’s more likely proof that Crooks and Liars and Wonkette are not particularly trustworthy web sites.

Really? You have a more material error on your own website right now, one which I emailed you about last night, before this Sampley post went up, but which remains unfixed.

[Foo Bar: As soon as I received your e-mail at about 9:45 p.m., I forwarded it to WLS asking him to look into it. I am on vacation and have very limited access to a computer, and it should be his responsibility to fix the error if he can. You left this comment at 5:48 a.m., about 8 hours after you e-mailed me. Most of those hours were in the middle of the night. By contrast, the errors in the Crooks and Liars and Wonkette posts have been there since January, about 8 months ago. So you might consider being less of a prick and giving us time to look into your allegations of error. By the way, it’s now 1:38 p.m. the next day and WLS has not responded, so I have asked DRJ to look into this. — Patterico]

WLS’s post on Michele Obama’s speech suggests that Michelle and Barack are trying to exaggerate over the extent to which he was a community-organizing do-gooder working for little in his post-college years by skipping over the two years he worked for for-profit Business International Corporation after finishing college. The problem is that he didn’t work for BIC for two years– he worked there for about a year, then left for NYPIRG to work as a campus organizer. WLS’ attack doesn’t work quite as well if instead of skipping over a substantial, 2-year for-profit stint, Obama skipping over 2 briefly held jobs, one of which was as a community-organizing do-gooder, does it? In any event, in neither Michele’s nor Barack’s quotes do they specifically claim anything about what he did immediately after college. WLS is the one that got down to specific nitty-gritty dates, except that he got it wrong.

If you’re going to making entire posts about errors like this Sampley one, you should fix your own website’s errors more promptly.

[And you might consider being less of a puffed-up jerk. Just a thought. — P]

I agree, FooBar. It should be noted and highlighted that Obama could barely hold a job in the private sector for one year, not two. His lack of ability coupled with the discovery that working a political job, while not paying much, didn’t actually require him to perform in any measureable manner was surely a stimulus for his leaving a job where he had to show up every day.

I’d never heard of Ted Sampley until now so I did a little reading up on him. He seems to be against anyone running for office (or in office) who has a service record. Dem or Republican. He also went after John Murtha and GHW Bush and this isn’t the first time he’s gone after McCain. This guy has serious issues.

Obama also wrote for Business International Money Report, a newsletter covering currency issues and monetary policy. “He had a good profile for Business International: bright, articulate, a good writer, and a knowledge of world issues and affairs,” said Lou Celi, an editor of Obama’s.

…

After about a year at Business International, Obama found a job as a community organizer in Chicago. “I remember telling him he was making a big mistake,” said Celi, who conducted Obama’s exit interview. “He let me know he had bigger fish to fry.”

I’d say it’s more likely proof that Crooks and Liars and Wonkette are not particularly trustworthy web sites.

No, I think C&L and Wonkette were using “swift-boater” in the generic sense of the verb (anyone who questioned Kerry for any reason based on something that happened in the past is automatically accused of “swift-boating”)

You’ve seen how just about anything that makes it harder for a liberal to get elected is called “swift boating” (or “voter intimidation”) by the Left.

Notice the lack of superlatives in the descriptions by the supervisor? Does the phrase “damning with faint praise” have any meaning in the world of sophistry which you inhabit? Why didn’t you note that she also said, “He was very mature and more worldly than other people — on the surface kind of laid back”?

Where’s the “We were terribly disappointed to lose such an outstanding and hardworking employee.”

Face it Foo, he’s a slacker. Bright, articulate, unenergetic and willing to slide as far as he can on the basis of… well, mustn’t be too unkind.

Where’s the “We were terribly disappointed to lose such an outstanding and hardworking employee.”

Did you read both the quotes I gave you? Celi tells him that he’s making a big mistake. And no, the mistake is not going to work for NYPIRG, it’s leaving BIC, since Obama says he has bigger fish to fry (than working for BIC).

Ted Sampley is a scam artist who made a lot of money by setting up a for profit company that made POW/MIA T-shirts, which were then sold to his non-profit “charity” organization. The non-profit used unpaid volunteers to sell the T-shirts to well meaning tourists in Washington DC, who thought their money was going to help POW/MIA’s.

McCain helped shut down this scam (and others) and Sampley has been gunning for him ever since. He’s deliberately tried to attach himself to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in order to give himself more legitimacy, particularly with gullible people like Sullivan. You can find articles on the web written by himself, where he implies that he was either part of, or strongly allied with the Swift Vets.

Sully went off the rails long before Gay marriage became his raison d’etre– I used to read him when he attempted his first massive fundraising drive, all because he was plum tuckered out, and pleaded for money due to his forthcoming destitution. His sheeple promptly sent him lots of dough, enough to reach his goal of $50 Grand (!) to continue his babbling. Not too shabby, eh? But then the manic – depressive immediately announced that he would be suspending his blog, and taking a well – deserved year – long sabbatical. He later relented, but his bona fides as a nutcase/drama queen were firmly established after that bait and switch.

As usual, the Obamatrons see whatever they want to see, particularly in this instance. Ask anyone who’s spent time in the corporate world, and the first thing they’d ask about this situation is what kind of counteroffer was made to the alleged highly valued employee. When I managed a sales staff and was in danger of losing one of the high – performing reps, the first thing I asked them is what would it take to get them to stay; more salary, more bonuses, more vacation, etc.

But nowhere in that article is there any mention of how badly (or if at all) they tried to keep him in their employ. Which is another way of saying nice things to a departing underperformer, especially when that same underperformer years later just happens to be in line to be the next POTUS. How convenient.

I concur. After more than two decades of executive and board-level experience, I’d say Obama might qualify for a management training program somewhere. At 46, getting elected is all there is to show. No signature legislation, no leadership or executive experience, a media-contrived image — a dissembler who might make a good salesman with the right taskmaster keeping an eye on him.

And all these attmepts by people like Foo Bar at making brief stints in entry-level jobs in the private sector look like a career come off as silly. I’ve got 30-year-old regional managers here in the real world who’d eat an effete poseur like this for breakfast.

Peg, I shouldn’t have used the term “sheeple” for his loyal readership at the time. After all, I was once a member of that tribe, and almost reached for my wallet after his impassioned pleas – glad I changed my mind at the last minute.

Obama is a great talker and impresses people for a while. Then they find out the stuff that isn’t quite as obvious. People who have a pattern of taking jobs for a year, then moving on are part of this complex. In some circles, they are referred to con men. Politics is full of them. He finally found his niche, not as a legislator but as an office seeker. Even the Harvard Law Review chose him as Editor but he had no articles to show how well he wrote.

McCain is almost the exact opposite. I’ve heard of Samply and the whole POW/MIA industry that McCain has gone after for years, especially when they were prominent in Washington 20 years ago. They hate him. Look at their website. He hurt their scam and they are paying him back. Some of you may be too young to remember the whole scam about POWs being held after the 1975 fall of Vietnam. McCain went over there and concluded there was no truth to it. These guys were making money off the MIA families. Vultures.

It was not apparent upon first reading that
“Swift Boat” Democrat John Kerry
meant that Kerry was a swiftboater or that he was “swiftboated”. In context, it is apparent that the latter was the intent. Just an FYI from a reader.

Sullivan seems to have had a breakdown of sorts about 4 or 5 years ago. His tone changed, his focus became obsessive re Bush, gay marriage, and himself. And there seemed to be an ever increasing semi-hysteria in his reporting – no matter what it was about. When he decided to coin the phrase Christianist, I knew he had gone off the rails. I assumed perhaps he had suffered a breakup with a partner or something and he was plowing through the aftermath of heartache…what else would account for such drama? But then the aftermath never ended…

One the APwire… ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Alaska Republicans gave U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, currently facing a federal indictment, a primary victory on Tuesday.

What in the world is going on with Republicans in Alaska??? Stevens is a disgrace to the party. How can the same people elect Sarah Palin and Ted Stevens? Palin I’d like to see in the VP slot (actually, I’d love to see her as the presidential candidate and McCain as the VP) and Stevens I’d like to see in an orange jumpsuit.

For what it’s worth, liberal gay writer David Ehrenstein asserts that the meds that Sullivan has been taking for a mumber of years have had an unavoidable impact on brain cells, basically destroying them in ever increasing numbers. This sounds plausible, given the dramatic change in his positions, as well as his often erratic behavior, such as writing contradictory statements within hours of each other.

I stopped reading Sullivan once it became clear that it was All About Gay Marriage. (Even though Bush’s predecessor had essentially the same position on the issue. I mean, really: Did anyone — whatever one’s stance on the issue –seriously expect Bush to promote or to agree with gay marriage?)

I don’t like that this post is defending the use of the term swiftboat as a verb.
The democrats use it as verb. This usage implies that the SB veterans were wrong to point out how they were not impressed with the service of the man who ran for president as a war hero.

The SB veterans made some clearly valid points (Christmas in Cambodia) and implied that Kerry’s medals weren’t valid, even though they didn’t have all the evidence to back up those claims. They were effective because they pointed out that Kerry was holding back on his military records, and they drew attention to the Winter Soldier Testimony.

The damage to Kerry was primarily due to the attention drawn to the Winter Soldier Testimony (Jehngis Kahn.)

There was nothing about the actions of the SB vets that warrants the use of “Swiftboating” as a negative verb.

WHAT HAPPENED to Andrew Sullivan???? Historically, I was an avid fan. However, he has sooooo diminished his credibility (near zero) that he has managed to removed himself from the high quality, journalistic, “A” listers. Unfortunately, Mr. Sullivan has relegated himself to being just another unreliable “slop slinger” in the “pig pen” portion of the blogasphere.

John Kole wrote: For what it’s worth, liberal gay writer David Ehrenstein asserts that the meds that Sullivan has been taking for a mumber of years have had an unavoidable impact on brain cells, basically destroying them in ever increasing numbers. This sounds plausible, given the dramatic change in his positions…

It should be also noted that Ted Sampley’s assertion that he is a “two-term Green Beret” needs to be verified. Usually, the Left’s “Green Berets” turn out to be wannabe’s who either had no connection to a Special Forces unit, or were Non-SF qualified persons who were temporarily attached to a bonified SF unit.

Actually, the Green Beret is what we wore on our heads. We thought of ourselves as Special Forces period.

“54. Sully still hasn’t posted a retraction, so I guess it’s fair to conclude that when he went to Oxford and Harvard he majored in lying.”

Serious question,

Does Sullivan post retractions? Ever?

Like everybody else here I stopped reading him years ago, so, beats me – but if he’s ever posted an actual retraction on any of the big controversies I’ve heard of with him over the years, I never heard about it.

Sampley has a hard-on for McCain because McCain doesn’t agree with Sampley on the Vietnam War POW/MIA issue. Sampley thinks McCain sold the POW/MIAs down the river for normalization with Commie VN. Sampley wasn’t anywhere near the SBVFT in 2004. Sullivan may want to have amed check soon.

Wait, I’m confused.
“…Ted Sampley, who helped “Swift Boat” Democrat John Kerry in the 2004 presidential race….Sampley was a wild-eyed opponent of John Kerry’s…”
Did he help or oppose Sen Kerry?

Comment by Jim,MtnViewCA,USA

Kerry was part of a bipartisan group that went to Vietnam about 20 years ago to investigate the issue. There were people in Thailand collecting money from families of MIAs and swearing they had seen camps, etc. McCain and Kerry concluded that there were no left-behind POWs. The POW/MIA industry went nuts, as you can see. These guys are related to the 9/11 truthers although it’s been 33 years since Saigon fell.

“I am well familiar with Mr. Sampley, and I know him to be one of the most despicable people I have ever had the misfortune to encounter,” McCain (of Charles F. Keating fame) warned the media. “I consider him a fraud who preys on the hopes of family members of missing servicemen for his own profit. He is dishonorable, an enemy of the truth, and despite his claims, he does not speak for or represent the views of all but a few veterans. The many veterans I know would think it a disgrace to be considered a comrade or supporter of Ted Sampley.”

I can think of a few circumstances where has, although I’ve long forgotten the particulars. But he will never ** ever ** issues a retraction if Mickey Kaus calls him on it (not that it has anything to do with this post, I just never fail to be amused by the sheer bitchiness of the Kaus/Sully feud).

Say – the whole issue of Obama doing great work in the private sector has gone down the memory hole – in her speech to introduce her husband, Michelle Obama gives the timeline of his looking for work and going into community organizing. Looks like that great work he did for the publishing company either did not warrant a mention or perhaps working in a big city for a nasty capitalist organization (and doing WELL at it, if it is to be believed) should NOT be part of Obama’s story. Messes up the narrative, you know.

Now – back to rumors about McCain’s (maybe, sorta) (non-)affair with that lobbyist! [DO NOT TALK ABOUT JOHN EDWARDS! – That is so SLEAZELY of you!!!!! no proof of that! – why then we’d have to “report” it – but no proof will prompt no “reporting” and no reporting prompts no “proof”!]

[Foo Bar: As soon as I received your e-mail at about 9:45 p.m., I forwarded it to WLS asking him to look into it.

OK, thanks to Patterico for looking into it.

Let the record show that he didn’t let me know he was looking into it last night. He didn’t acknowledge my complaint until this afternoon. So the comment I left on this thread would not have been written had I known it was being looked into.

Shortly after when I pointed out the error via email and comments but before I was acknowledged, this post on Sampley went up. Obviously, I understand that bloggers can’t be in front of the computer 24 hours a day and there will often be delays before corrections are issued. When there’s evidence suggesting that the blogger is back working on the blog but no evidence that he’s looking into the error, though, that’s when I get a little frustrated.

So you might consider being less of a prick

O.K, thanks for the advice. Note that I haven’t engaged in any name-calling here. You pound relentlessly and, at times, not very respecfully (“L.A. Dog Trainer”) on those you criticize. One might expect you to be a little thicker-skinned when you’re on the other end of some criticism, but I guess not.

Poof Bear – it’s his site, the man can do whatever he wishes. It’s called capitalism and free speech, and if you don’t like what you read here, you’re more than welcome to start your own blog. Capiche?

furious — I wouldn’t compare Sully to Brock. Brock is an out-and-out fraud and liar. Sully actually believes everything he writes and doesn’t knowlingly publish falsehoods (though his fact-checking could stand some improvement).

Sully’s issue is that he tends to crush on politicians like a schoolgirl (or groupie), then falls out of love and later grows to despise them. His “spurned lover” attacks on Bush fall into a pattern first exhibited towards Bill Clinton (he penned the TNR editorial endorsing him for President in 1992), then Al Gore and, subsequent to Bush, McCain (who he was extoling as recently as February of this year). If Obama wins I absolutely guarantee you he will turn on him sometime between early 2011 and early 2012; you can take that to the bank.

Foo Bar, this may come as a terrible shock, but the world does not revolve around you. No, really, I’m serious.

You have a hissy fit because Patterico and/or company don’t update a post RIGHT NOW, and when he points out that your complaint was posted a measly eight hours (in the middle of the night) after the post, do you say “my bad?” Nope, you complain that no one told you they were checking it.

Sorry, I missed the page in the Blogger’s Etiquette Handbook which says that a blogger is morally and legally bound to immediately reply to a complaint, without regard to said blogger’s job, blog, personal or family life.

As for your frustrations, I suggest that the term “prick” is precisely accurate with respect to the self-centered whining displayed in this thread.

I called bullshit on him in the other thread almost 15 minutes ago. He has not responded. Nor has he emailed me to tell me he is checking into it and will respond later. I am outraged, outraged I tell you!! What is he trying to avoid? Why ignore my all-important comment to him? Because he wants to sweep his mistakes under the rug I tell you!!

Never or at most hardly ever. I stopped reading Sully back in 2002 after noticing that he never posted corrections on his blog. Why waste time on a man (correction: over-educated lad) who is a serial liar?